On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:39 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 23:30 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 22:09 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 08:57 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 17:13 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 07/26/2011 10:50 AM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> From: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The IPv6 client functions clntudp6_bufcreate(), clntudp6_create and > > >>>>>>> clnttcp6_create and the server functions svcudp6_bufcreate(), > > >>>>>>> svctcp6_create() and svcudp6_create() are not included in the > > >>>>>>> library > > >>>>>>> whe libtirpc is built. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Are these part of the libtirpc standard API? I'm not sure why we > > >>>>>> would need them if, say, Solaris does not support these. > > >>>>> It appears they are not since they are not mentioned the man > > >>>>> pages..... > > >>>>> But, at least in the autofs code, they are expected > > >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711956#c0 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ian, where else are these routines defined? > > >>>> > > >>>> Now that I look I can't find the original source tar that was used for > > >>>> libtirpc, thought I had it. > > >>> > > >>> Found what I had. > > >>> > > >>> AFAICT what I think was the original source doesn't have any IPv6 code > > >>> that I can see. > > >>> > > >>> Worse, these functions were excluded with the "#ifdef INET6_NOT_USED" > > >>> macro as far back as libtirpc version 0.1.5 so, my bad, sorry. > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The story is that long ago when I changed autofs to use libtirpc (to > > >>>> make it ready for IPv6) I found these functions in the source and they > > >>>> were (obviously) the IPv6 counterparts for the corresponding IPv4 > > >>>> functions which I was already using, so I used them. It took me quite a > > >>>> while to realize my code wasn't working and then I found that somewhere > > >>>> along the line they have been excluded, oops! > > >>>> > > >>>> If there are to be no IPv6 counterparts for the corresponding IPv4 > > >>>> functions which functions should I use then? > > >>> > > >>> So what can I use? > > >>> > > >>> It seems to me that these functions would be useful for people porting > > >>> code that uses the corresponding IPv4 functions so could we define them > > >>> please. At some point someone must have had that same idea .... > > >> > > >> It looks to me like these functions were part of an original attempt > > >> at IPv6 support that was abandoned long ago. They are not part of > > >> TI-RPC, but as you observed, they are merely IPv6 versions of the > > >> legacy RPC API. I don't see these implemented in glibc, for example. > > >> > > >> For IPv6 support, use functions that are part of the modern libtirpc > > >> API. This is described in Sun doc 816-1435. You probably will be > > >> most successful with the "simplified interface" which is described in > > >> Chapter 4. You might need somewhat more extensive surgery since I'm > > >> guessing you have separate code paths to invoke the IPv4 and IPv6 > > >> legacy RPC functions; generally speaking that should not be needed > > >> when using the libtirpc API. > > > > > > I doubt the simplified interface will be adequate since this code was > > > written because of a need for greater control over timeouts. Perhaps > > > that won't be the case, I don't know yet. > > > > If you want control over connection timeouts, use the expert-level or > > bottom-level interfaces. Otherwise you can set per-RPC timeouts when > > clnt_call(3t) is invoked. nfs-utils has some example code > > (support/nfs/rpc_socket.c is one place to look). > > > > > Your suggestion amounts to saying I need to re-write all my RPC > > code. > > > > The substantial change with client-side TI-RPC is how CLIENTs are > > created. The other RPC operations are similar or the same as they > > were with the legacy API. Once you get over getnetconfigent(3t) it's > > really not as bad as it looks. > > > > Sure, but it's the dependent code in autofs that uses the RPC routines > that will force me to keep the interface. But, like I said, it may be a > non-issue since I can lift these routines straight out of libtirpc (as > long as I attribute copyright according to the comment in the source > file).
That's not going to be straight forward either. > > Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
